Political Perspective

QUESTIONS have been raised, quite legitimately in many cases, by members of the public who are questioning the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) over what is perceived to be avoidance of the bigger cases involving high-ranking people and instead targeting those at a lower level.

I wouldn’t say it was deliberate on their part, although it would be good to hear from them once in a while about their progress on cases like Namibia Liquid Fuels, the ODC, SSC and other cases that surely must be under their scrutiny given the millions that have gone missing or have been misappropriated. I ALSO think that a distinction needs to be made between certain levels of theft and corruption.Corruption certainly involves stealing, but theft doesn’t necessarily mean corruption! I don’t think many people differentiate between the two, although for the purposes of who does what in the so-called zero-tolerance campaign, it is important that the one be distinguished from the other.One could argue quite convincingly that a person who steals is morally corrupt, but then not necessarily, depending on what is stolen and why.A dictionary definition of theft, describes it as “the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession”.Corruption in turn is described as “the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt”.It includes moral perversion (say, the act of corrupting a minor) or dishonesty, especially bribery.I am trying to differentiate between the two because it may provide the answer to why the ACC doesn’t appear to.What one could term ordinary cases of theft by ‘ordinary’ people, for want of a better word, should be matters for the Police to deal with.For example, a school secretary dipping her fingers into the till is clearly not an issue for the ACC! The ACC’s focus should of course be on acts of corruption, particularly when it involves those who are abusing positions of trust, and often in the process taking State funds.If a foreigner cannot get a work permit, or it is not done timeously, this too is not something for the ACC.After all, it may simply be a case of a turgid bureaucracy, inefficiency or discrimination – none of which fall within the ACC ambit.Such a case, it could be argued, may belong more appropriately with the Office of the Ombudsman.Just as labour cases do not fall under the latter’s office (and I recall a few annual reports of the Ombudsman in which the majority of cases dealt with involved pay disputes!); so too do cases of theft, in the ordinary sense, not fall under the ACC.Naturally, this does not include the theft of State resources at high level, because this is often committed by senior office bearers in positions of trust.If one looks at some of the cases that have been, and are currently being, dealt with by the ACC, then I would venture to say that I concur with much of the public criticism which takes issue with the ACC for NOT dealing with the higher-ups as effectively as is presently the case with the vigour they are using on expediting less important investigations.All of the above is not necessarily to negate the work of the ACC.Quite the contrary.But in time I suspect that they too will learn to turn away complaints that are quite patently not for their scrutiny, and at least ensure that they are referred to the right department to deal with them.One also wants to guard against an over-zealous culture of terming everything corruption, regardless of whether it is or not, and labelling everyone indiscriminately.If we want to really get a handle on this scourge, it is important to research it, and there are many resources at our disposal.Government talks a lot about a code of ethics for media, but we could in turn suggest for them an anti-corruption handbook.In the process of teaching Government officials about it, we would be tutoring our population as well.I will conclude with Transparency International’s description of corruption, which may help guide the public towards trying to determine whether certain issues are applicable to the ACC for investigation or not: Corruption is operationally defined as the misuse of entrusted power for private gain.I ALSO think that a distinction needs to be made between certain levels of theft and corruption.Corruption certainly involves stealing, but theft doesn’t necessarily mean corruption! I don’t think many people differentiate between the two, although for the purposes of who does what in the so-called zero-tolerance campaign, it is important that the one be distinguished from the other.One could argue quite convincingly that a person who steals is morally corrupt, but then not necessarily, depending on what is stolen and why.A dictionary definition of theft, describes it as “the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession”.Corruption in turn is described as “the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt”.It includes moral perversion (say, the act of corrupting a minor) or dishonesty, especially bribery. I am trying to differentiate between the two because it may provide the answer to why the ACC doesn’t appear to.What one could term ordinary cases of theft by ‘ordinary’ people, for want of a better word, should be matters for the Police to deal with.For example, a school secretary dipping her fingers into the till is clearly not an issue for the ACC! The ACC’s focus should of course be on acts of corruption, particularly when it involves those who are abusing positions of trust, and often in the process taking State funds.If a foreigner cannot get a work permit, or it is not done timeously, this too is not something for the ACC.After all, it may simply be a case of a turgid bureaucracy, inefficiency or discrimination – none of which fall within the ACC ambit.Such a case, it could be argued, may belong more appropriately with the Office of the Ombudsman.Just as labour cases do not fall under the latter’s office (and I recall a few annual reports of the Ombudsman in which the majority of cases dealt with involved pay disputes!); so too do cases of theft, in the ordinary sense, not fall under the ACC.Naturally, this does not include the theft of State resources at high level, because this is often committed by senior office bearers in positions of trust.If one looks at some of the cases that have been, and are currently being, dealt with by the ACC, then I would venture to say that I concur with much of the public criticism which takes issue with the ACC for NOT dealing with the higher-ups as effectively as is presently the case with the vigour they are using on expediting less important investigations.All of the above is not necessarily to negate the work of the ACC.Quite the contrary.But in time I suspect that they too will learn to turn away complaints that are quite patently not for their scrutiny, and at least ensure that they are referred to the right department to deal with them.One also wants to guard against an over-zealous culture of terming everything corruption, regardless of whether it is or not, and labelling everyone indiscriminately.If we want to really get a handle on this scourge, it is important to research it, and there are many resources at our disposal.Government talks a lot about a code of ethics for media, but we could in turn suggest for them an anti-corruption handbook.In the process of teaching Government officials about it, we would be tutoring our population as well.I will conclude with Transparency International’s description of corruption, which may help guide the public towards trying to determine whether certain issues are applicable to the ACC for investigation or not: Corruption is operationally defined as the misuse of entrusted power for private gain.